Free expression in the news

GLOBAL
Social media isn’t a free-for-all space
It is often thought that social media breaks down barriers and allows the oppressed an avenue for free speech. Social media can also allow easy sharing of information with a wider audience, all with just a click of a button. (Asia One)

Cannes 2013:Iran’s Farhadi and China’s Jia talk cinema & censorship
Two directors from countries with tough film censorship brought bold and probing movies to the Cannes Film Festival on Friday — one exploring China’s social problems, the other delving into the mysteries of the human heart. (India Live)

ALGERIA
Algerian newspaper editor accuses government of censorship
An editor has accused Algeria’s government of censorship after it blocked the publication of his two newspapers. (Washington Post)

Bouteflika’s ‘coma’ leads to censorship of two Algerian dailies
Algeria censored two dailies over reports that President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, hospitalised in Paris since April 27, will return home in a coma after his health took a turn for the worse, their chief said on Sunday. (Middle East Online)

BAHRAIN
Letter: Bahrain citizens denied basic rights
In the U.S., many citizens exercise their right to peaceful assembly. However, in Bahrain this basic human right is being denied. Citizens are subject to ridiculous punishments for peaceful expression and assembly. Bloomington Pantagraph

Video: Surveillance for Sale: ‘UK exports spyware to Bahrain to track activists’
The Bahraini government is accused of using surveillance software from a UK-based company, to spy on a leading rights activist. That’s according to documents filed at the High Court in London, by one of the founders of the rights group, Bahrain Watch. The programme works by infecting your computer, and then recording your Skype conversations and social media activity. It can also take screenshots without your knowledge, and access information on your hard disk. Alaa Shehabi, who filed the court documents – told RT that digital surveillance has been spreading in Bahrain, since former high ranking UK police officer John Yates became security advisor there. (RT)

INDIA
Send Section 66A bullies home
We’re all familiar with the use of IT Act Section 66A to stifle dissent. Even the apex court has admitted that the law cannot be entrusted to ordinary policemen. But now big organisations are figuring out how to take advantage of this censorship tool too. (India Today

ITALY
Amanda Knox claims she is penniless after facing libel lawsuits over her memoir
Amanda Knox has revealed that she is almost broke because of her huge legal bills – despite a $1.5million book advance. (Daily Mail

RUSSIA
EU ‘worried’ about Russia’s human rights record
The European Union criticised Russia’s human rights record, saying it was increasingly concerned at a wave of restrictive legislation and prosecutions against activists. (TV New Zealand)

UNITED STATES
What We Said 150 Years Ago: How free speech is abridged
The New York copperheads (who were Democrats living in northern states opposed to the Civil War) had a meeting the other afternoon to denounce the (Lincoln) administration for suppressing the liberty of “free speech.” (Wisonsin State Journal)

Ashley: Chilling effect on free expression worth worrying about
What’s going on here? By coincidence or terrible karma, the unsettling developments on the free expression of ideas, open government and our ability to monitor that government are reason for concern and anger. (The Herald-Sun)

‘IRS suppressed advocates of free speech’
The Internal Revenue Service has sought to “suppress” advocates of free speech by targeting conservative groups based on their ideology, says Jim W. Dean, managing editor and columnist at Veterans Today. (Press TV)

Advocates from five nations demand their governments respect strong encryption

Today, 84 organisations and individuals from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA sent letters to their respective governments insisting that government officials defend strong encryption. The letter comes on the heels of a meeting of the “Five Eyes” ministerial meeting in Ottawa, Canada earlier this week.

The “Five Eyes” is a surveillance partnership of intelligence agencies consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. According to a joint communique issued after the meeting encryption and access to data was discussed. The communique stated that “encryption can severely undermine public safety efforts by impeding lawful access to the content of communications during investigations into serious crimes, including terrorism.”

In the letter organised by Access Now, CIPPIC, and researchers from Citizen Lab, 83 groups and individuals from the so-called “Five Eyes” countries wrote “we call on you to respect the right to use and develop strong encryption.” Signatories also urged the members of the ministerial meeting to commit to allowing public participating in any future discussions.

 

Read the letter in full:

Senator the Hon. George Brandis
Attorney General of Australia

Hon. Christopher Finlayson
Attorney General of New Zealand

Hon. Ralph Goodale
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada

Hon. John Kelly
United States Secretary of Homeland Security

Rt. Hon. Amber Rudd,
Secretary of State for the Home Department, United Kingdom

CC: Hon. Peter Dutton, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Australia;
Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, Canada;
Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General for the United States;
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Canada;
Hon. Michael Woodhouse, Minister of Immigration, New Zealand

 

To Ministers Responsible for the Five Eyes Security Community,
In light of public reports about this week’s meeting between officials from your agencies, the undersigned individuals and organisations write to emphasise the importance of national policies that encourage and facilitate the development and use of strong encryption. We call on you to respect the right to use and develop strong encryption and commit to pursuing any additional dialogue in a transparent forum with meaningful public participation.

This week’s Five Eyes meeting (comprised of Ministers from the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia) discussed “plans to press technology firms to share encrypted data with security agencies” and hopes to achieve “a common position on the extent of … legally imposed obligations on … device-makers and social media companies to co-operate.” In a Joint Communiqué following the meeting, participants committed to exploring shared solutions to the perceived impediment posed by encryption to investigative objectives.

While the challenges of modern day security are real, such proposals threaten the integrity and security of general purpose communications tools relied upon by international commerce, the free press, governments, human rights advocates, and individuals around the world.

Last year, many of us joined several hundred leading civil society organisations, companies, and prominent individuals calling on world leaders to protect the development of strong cryptography. This protection demands an unequivocal rejection of laws, policies, or other mandates or practices—including secret agreements with companies—that limit access to or undermine encryption and other secure communications tools and technologies.

Today, we reiterate that call with renewed urgency. We ask you to protect the security of your citizens, your economies, and your governments by supporting the development and use of secure communications tools and technologies, by rejecting policies that would prevent or undermine the use of strong encryption, and by urging other world leaders to do the same.

Attempts to engineer “backdoors” or other deliberate weaknesses into commercially available encryption software, to require that companies preserve the ability to decrypt user data or to force service providers to design communications tools in ways that allow government interception are both shortsighted and counterproductive. The reality is that there will always be some data sets that are relatively secure from state access. On the other hand, leaders must not lose sight of the fact that even if measures to restrict access to strong encryption are adopted within Five Eyes countries, criminals, terrorists, and malicious government adversaries will simply switch to tools crafted in foreign jurisdictions or accessed through black markets. Meanwhile, innocent individuals will be exposed to needless risk. Law-abiding companies and government agencies will also suffer serious consequences. Ultimately, while legally discouraging encryption might make some useful data available in some instances, it has by no means been established that such steps are necessary or appropriate to achieve modern intelligence objectives.

Notably, government entities around the world, including Europol and representatives in the U.S. Congress, have started to recognise the benefits of encryption and the futility of mandates that would undermine it.

We urge you, as leaders in the global community, to remember that encryption is a critical tool of general use. It is neither the cause nor the enabler of crime or terrorism. As a technology, encryption does far more good than harm. We, therefore, ask you to prioritise the safety and security of individuals by working to strengthen the integrity of communications and systems. As an initial step, we ask that you continue any engagement on this topic in a multi-stakeholder forum that promotes public participation and affirms the protection of human rights.

We look forward to working together toward a more secure future.

Sincerely,

Access Now

Advocacy for Principled Action in Government

American Library Association

Amnesty International

Amnesty UK

Article 19

Australian Privacy Foundation

Big Brother Watch

Blueprint for Free Speech

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA)

Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE)

Center for Democracy and Techology

Centre for Free Expression, Ryerson University

Chaos Computer Club (CCC)

Constitutional Alliance

Consumer Action

CryptoAustralia

Crypto.Quebec

Defending Rights and Dissent

Demand Progress

Digital Rights Watch

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Electronic Frontiers Australia

Electronic Privacy Information Center

Engine

Equalit.ie

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Friends of Privacy USA

Future Wise

Government Accountability Project

Human Rights Watch

i2Coalition

Index on Censorship

International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG)

Internet NZ

Liberty

Liberty Coalition

Liberty Victoria

Library Freedom Project

My Private Network

New America’s Open Technology Institute

NZ Council for Civil Liberties

OpenMedia

Open Rights Group (ORG)

NEXTLEAP

Niskanen Center

Patient Privacy Rights

PEN International

Privacy International

Privacy Times

Private Internet Access

Restore the Fourth

Reporters Without Borders

Rights Watch (UK)

Riseup Networks

R Street Institute

Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest

Clinic (CIPPIC)

Scottish PEN

Subgraph

Sunlight Foundation

TechFreedom

Tech Liberty

The Tor Project

Voices-Voix

World Privacy Forum

Brian Behlendorf, executive director, Hyperledger, at the Linux Foundation

Dr. Paul Bernal, lecturer in IT, IP and media law, UEA Law School

Owen Blacker, founder and director, Open Rights Group; founder, NO2ID

Thorsten Busch, lecturer and senior research fellow, University of St Gallen

Gabriella Coleman, Wolfe Chair in scientific and technological literacy at McGill University

Sasha Costanza-Chock, associate professor of civic media, MIT

Dave Cox, CEO, Liquid VPN

Ron Deibert, The Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs

Nathan Freitas, Guardian Project

Dan Gillmor, professor of practice, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University

Adam Molnar, lecturer in criminology, Deakin University

Christopher Parsons, The Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs

Jon Penney, research fellow, The Citizen lab, Munk School of Global Affairs

Chip Pitts, professorial lecturer, Oxford University

Ben Robinson, directory, Outside the Box Technology Ltd and Discovery Technology Ltd

Sarah Myers Wes, doctoral candidate at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

J.M. Porup, journalist

Lokman Tsui, assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Faculty Associate, Berkman Klein Center)

Index Index

What is the Index Index? The Index Index is a pilot project that uses innovative machine learning techniques to map the free expression landscape across the globe to gain a clearer country-by-country view of the state of free expression across academic, digital and...

Respect for tradition: Australia’s selective listening on environment issues

The bushfires that tore across Australia in the summer of 2019-20 left in their wake 18 million hectares of scorched land. A total of 33 people – including nine firefighters – lost their lives, and close to 3,500 homes were razed to the ground. Ecologists calculated that as many as one billion animals perished in the fires, while economists estimated the cost of recovery at an unprecedented AU$100 billion.

Faced with tallies of destruction too big to comprehend, Australians cast about for clarity on why this disaster was unfolding, and how it could be prevented from happening again the future. Conveniently, there was a living culture with 65,000 years of experience in caring for the country to turn to for answers.

The fires precipitated a sudden torrent of interest in traditional Aboriginal land management techniques. First Nations rangers, practitioners and traditional knowledge experts – so rarely afforded time on the airwaves – were widely consulted on national television and radio shows. For many Australians, it was their first time hearing about “cool burning” and “fire-stick farming”: traditional methods of burning patches of bushland at low temperatures to clear the undergrowth without damaging root systems and curtail the risk of out-of-control bushfires in the arid heights of summer.

Yet these practices are ancient. They’ve been passed down through generations of Aboriginal Australians, forming part of the symbiotic relationship that First Nations people have with the environment as custodians of the land.

“Think of it like this: an Aboriginal man 300 years ago didn’t have to worry about handing a climate emergency on to the next generation,” said indigenous cultural educator and Wiradjuri man Darren Charlwood.

“What they were handing on to their children was an understanding of how to survive, how to respect their country, how to respect their ancestors in doing so, and how to practise all this through land management, through ritual, through their interactions within their social organisation and systems.”

While the unprecedented interest in traditional knowledge from the media, the government and conservation organisations was undeniably welcome, for educators such as Charlwood – who works for Sydney’s Royal Botanical Gardens and the New South Wales government’s National Parks and Wildlife Service – it was also frustrating.

“If that sort of engagement had come into play a lot earlier, we probably wouldn’t have had as big a catastrophe as we did,” he said. “Traditional fire management is wonderful, and it can really help with the plight of our environment in Australia. But, mind you, this was a climate catastrophe. Traditional land management would have saved only so much. The bottom line is the climate is changing.”

The consultation-after-the-fact that occurred in the wake of the 2019-20 bushfires is symptomatic of a more troubling “selective listening” that Australia’s First Nations people encounter across the political spectrum – from the prime minister’s office to the halls of local government – especially on land and environment issues.

It’s something that Yvonne Weldon, Australia’s first Aboriginal candidate for Lord Mayor of Sydney, is looking to change.

For Weldon, the principle of inclusion is at the core of an indigenous approach to leadership and environmentalism. It’s a value she places at the heart of her campaign.

“Inclusion is who we are as First Nations people,” she said. “Our ability to be inclusive – to hear what others are saying and act with sensitivity to their existence – is how we have been able to survive.”

She added that the same logic applied to the environment. “Prior to Invasion we didn’t have polluted parts of our country. We didn’t take any more than was needed. Whatever ecosystem you were a part of, you had to live in harmony with it. You didn’t do it at the expense of other living things.”

Reaching for the top

Weldon and her team at Unite for Sydney launched their campaign at Redfern Oval in May, nearly 20 years after then-prime minister Paul Keating’s historic Redfern Speech, where he recognised the impact of dispossession and oppression on First Nations peoples, and called for their place in the modern Australian nation to be cemented.

“It’s about creating moments that represent a landmark for inclusion,” explained Weldon. “And, hopefully, those moments happen closer and closer together in time until inclusion is no longer the exception, it’s commonplace.”

Weldon is a proud Wiradjuri woman who grew up in the inner-city suburb of Redfern, Sydney. With 30 years of experience as a community organiser and campaigner, she has spent her adult life advocating for the disadvantaged. She is a board member of Domestic Violence NSW and Redfern Jarjum College – a primary school supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children needing additional learning support – as well as deputy chair of the NSW Australia Day Council. She’s also the first Aboriginal person to run for the top job at the City of Sydney Council.

“To me, the fact that I’m the first Aboriginal person to run for Lord Mayor of Sydney in 2021 is insulting,” she said. “It’s an insult because it hasn’t been done before in this country, and yet we think we have progressed.”

Running on a platform of effective climate action, genuinely affordable housing and better community engagement, the campaigner-turned-candidate sees plenty of opportunities for improvement.

“True leadership has to be inclusive of all, and what I’ve seen in local government has fallen way short of that.”
She realised she had to take a run at the job after six years as elected chair of Sydney’s Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC) – an organisation set up by law to advocate for the interests of local Aboriginal people in relation to land acquisition, use and management.

In her experience, representatives of the City of Sydney Council have chosen to engage only when it suits their purposes, and either reject proposals for meaningful change out of hand or use inordinate process as a way of keeping them in check.

It’s an all-too-familiar story in Australia, where the government has been unwilling to reach a treaty with its indigenous people comparable to those of New Zealand, Canada or the USA.

Aboriginal calls for recognition were formalised in 2017 with the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called for a First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution, and a treaty to supervise agreement-making and truth-telling with governments.

But the historical consensus was rejected outright by then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and denigrated by the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, who called it an “overreach”.

Following a 2018 parliamentary inquiry which found the Statement from the Heart should indeed be enacted, the current Australian government has delayed plans to introduce relevant legislation until after the next federal election in 2022.

A long fight

The application of “selective listening” to First Nations calls for autonomy over their own land is, historically speaking, one of the foundations that modern Australia was built on.

“The damage that’s been done to Australia over 250 years of not respecting indigenous people or knowledge… you can really see it in our environment, it’s very much on show,” said Charlwood. “Because of the way that people have introduced invasive animals and plants to Australia, because of practices like mining and the way people engage with the landscape here, Australia has lost more wildlife in a shorter time than anywhere else on Earth.”

According to Heather Goodall – professor emerita of history at the University of Technology in Sydney – there is historical evidence that Aboriginal people in New South Wales made efforts to secure broad tracts of land where they could feel a sense of safety and belonging, access sites of cultural significance and act as custodians for the environment as early as the 1840s, when the first “reserves” were established.

Despite a movement which involved direct action, writing their own petitions and recruiting sympathetic white men to convey their demands to authorities, Aboriginal people were gradually moved to government-delineated reserves, missions or small parcels of land for agricultural use.

“Consultation is often about seeking opinions which will be used to justify a decision that has already been made. It’s a very hard-to-define term that often doesn’t mean having decision-making power,” said Goodall.
That’s a sentiment Weldon can relate to. “Aboriginal people are not one people – there are hundreds of different nations and tribes and clans all across the country,” she said.

“Bearing in mind the diversity of Aboriginal Australia, often what people in power do is if they don’t want to hear what one group has to say, they’ll go to another group until they find someone to say what they want to hear. I call it ‘shopping around’.

“They’ll play people off each other, they’ll offer little crumbs, they’ll do all these types of things because that’s the colonial viewpoint. It’s about creating the notion that you’re open and inclusive, when actually you’re orchestrating it all for self.

“Sydney represents ground zero, where the impact of colonisation began,” she added. “But you can’t talk about reviving or respecting traditional knowledge if you’re not inclusive of First Nations people.”

As another generation of Aboriginal Australians stands ready to share knowledge and lead the way to a more sustainable future, the question remains whether other Australians are ready to listen – and ready to vote.